Shopsmith Forums

We be on a tangent, but while discussing 'what ifs';

If Gass originally had a license fee that was reasonable(in the eyes of PTI folks) they all might be selling licensed products today.

If Gass's design did not include destruction of the user's saw blade and disassembly and replacement of the 'cartridge' causing considerable down time the PTI folks would probably be more interested(That has got to be a real negative selling point to production folks).

If Gass had not balked at the originsal signed agreement from Ryobi he would at least have one manufacturer.

If Osario had used a different brand from Ryobi, I wonder if Gass would have been so instrumental in that case. I know nothing, but, there is no doubt in my mind he was the prime mover in bringing that case.

If Gass has such confidence in his system, I would like to see him demonstrate by pointing his finger too close to the blade at an approach velocity of greater than sneak up on it.

If Gass had not started all this, the PTI folks would probably be doing the same things(or less) than they did the previous decade.

If Gass had not attempted to patent the world as a coercive tactic PTI folks may have moved to create their competitive designs.


Conjecture? Of course. A lotta truth? More than likely IMHO.

Since you pointed out that this is a tangent discussion, I'll refrain from further comment. I can very easily get "carried away" on this subject. The only other subject I might detour onto as quickly is mandatory healthcare or the elimination of care for military members and their families.

dusty wrote:Since you pointed out that this is a tangent discussion, I'll refrain from further comment. I can very easily get "carried away" on this subject. The only other subject I might detour onto as quickly is mandatory healthcare or the elimination of care for military members and their families.

So any 'progress' on a course of action?

JPG40504 wrote: ***
I know nothing, but, there is no doubt in my mind he was the prime mover in bringing that case.
***
Conjecture? Of course. A lotta truth? More than likely IMHO.

JPG,

Not again. I debunked this statement by you once before. http://shopsmith.net/forums/showpost.ht ... stcount=25 It was clear from the trial testimony, including cross-examination, that Gass had absolutely no roll in bringing the case. He was contacted after the case was filed by the attorney representing the insurer for Osario's employer and agreed to testify as an expert witness. He did NOT bring the case which was brought BEFORE he knew about Osario or the injury. Period. There is NO room for debate.

Your response then, which I didn't understand then and still don't understand, was that because I had read the transcripts, you needed to "speculate" about "details." http://shopsmith.net/forums/showpost.ht ... stcount=30

There may be things he has done for which Gass can be second guessed or criticized. But what you are doing by repeating this falsehood that he was the prime mover in bringing the case isn't harmless specualtion about details. You are deliberately spreading falsehoods that you've been shown aren't true, and that you admit you have no basis in reality to think are true.

algale wrote:JPG,

Not again. I debunked this statement by you once before. http://shopsmith.net/forums/showpost.htm?p=100555&postcount=25 It was clear from the trial testimony, including cross-examination, that Gass had absolutely no roll in bringing the case. He was contacted after the case was filed by the attorney representing the insurer for Osario's employer and agreed to testify as an expert witness. He did NOT bring the case which was brought BEFORE he knew about Osario or the injury. Period. There is NO room for debate.

Your response then, which I didn't understand then and still don't understand, was that because I had read the transcripts, you needed to "speculate" about "details." http://shopsmith.net/forums/showpost.htm?p=100594&postcount=30

There may be things he has done for which Gass can be second guessed or criticized. But what you are doing by repeating this falsehood that he was the prime mover in bringing the case isn't harmless specualtion about details. You are deliberately spreading falsehoods that you've been shown aren't true, and that you admit you have no basis in reality to think are true.

Regardless of documented 'testimony', I still am 'opinionated'. I will however agree I am on opinion only. The possibility exists, although that takes us down a very dark precipitous path. I do hear ya! The seeds of doubt are sprouting.

I think an expert witness for this case should have been from those involved in or active in the manufacture of the equipment of interest and/or acquainted with common usage of said equipment, not one off to the side with a personal/professional/financial interest in the outcome of the case.

Did any such witnesses testify as to commonly accepted procedures for the equipment?

One thing I am sure of is many safe practices were not adhered to and lack thereof contributed almost entirely to the injury.

JPG40504 wrote:I think an expert witness for this case should have been from those involved in or active in the manufacture of the equipment of interest and/or acquainted with common usage of said equipment, not one off to the side with a personal/professional/financial interest in the outcome of the case.

Gass's personal, professional, financial interests were thoroughly explored in cross examination. Ryobi had its own expert. The jury apparently believed Gass more than Ryobi's expert.

JPG40504 wrote:Did any such witnesses testify as to commonly accepted procedures for the equipment?

One thing I am sure of is many safe practices were not adhered to and lack thereof contributed almost entirely to the injury.

Yes this was brought out at trial. There were two legal theories brought at trial: (1) negligence and (2) strict products liability. On negligence, the Jury expressly found Osario was negligent and 35% responsible for his own injuries. On strict products liability, the negligence of the operator is legally irrelevant.

algale wrote:Gass's personal, professional, financial interests were thoroughly explored in cross examination. Ryobi had its own expert. The jury apparently believed Gass more than Ryobi's expert.Ok So the litmus test passed. I am sure Gass knew how to answer all questions so as to lead to that 'conclusion'. Hindsight(subsequent events) leads me to conclude he did have beneficial interest in the outcome. Apparently his 'foresight' was myopic!


Yes this was brought out at trial. There were two legal theories brought at trial: (1) negligence and (2) strict products liability. On negligence, the Jury expressly found Osario was negligent and 35% responsible for his own injuries. On strict products liability, the negligence of the operator is legally irrelevant.

And what is correct about 35% responsible? How was anyone or any thing responsible for the other 65%? I think the employer is culpable(from a responsibility standpoint, not a clouded legal standpoint). The manufacturer is not responsible for Osario's negligence.

Osario unfortunately was ill prepared to operate the saw properly. There are real extenuating details in this case, language barriers not the least significant. A sad case indeed. Due to the uniqueness of those details, it really is not a good basis for future action other than to encourage employers to make certain proper safe procedures are adhered to.

Unfortunately it has become a 'poster case' for the CPSC and their 'ally'.

The results of their future work will be interesting to say the least.

JPG40504 wrote:And what is correct about 35% responsible? How was anyone or any thing responsible for the other 65%?

You answered your own question, in part. I think it is perfectly obvious, as you yourself point out, the employer was very culpable. The employer removed the safety devices, the fence and the miter bar and set Osario loose with no training to, dare I say it, try his hand at a very dangerous free-hand cut. Of course under worker's comp, the negligence of the employer doesn't matter because the employer can't be sued. The employer's worker's comp insurance company simply pays out and then looks for someone else to sue.

JPG40504 wrote:The manufacturer is not responsible for Osario's negligence.

You are right -- and had Osario only sued for negligence, he would have not recovered 35% of the damages that the jury determined Osario himself caused through his own negligence.

But he also sued for strict products liability and, in that context, his negligence just doesn't matter. The jury determined that Ryobi knew about a technology that, for a relatively modest price, they could have put into the saw and which would have spared Osario from suffering massive and expensive injuries that could be foreseen and which far dwarfed the price of the technology implementation. That's a recipe in all 50 states for being held liable under the theory of strict products liability.

algale wrote:But he also sued for strict products liability and, in that context, his negligence just doesn't matter. The jury determined that Ryobi knew about a technology that, for a relatively modest price,(emphasis mine) they could have put into the saw and which would have spared Osario from suffering massive and expensive injuries that could be foreseen and which far dwarfed the price of the technology implementation. That's a recipe in all 50 states for being held liable under the theory of strict products liability.

Relatively modest price??????? How about doubling the cost of the saw. The saw he was using was a cheap Ryobi that sold for under 200. Which probably cost the manufacture $100 or less to build. Add to that $100 the cost and royality of Gass's product and manufacturer would have had somewhere around double the cost of the original saw to get it to market.

Yes Gass will dispute that figure but as of yet he hasn't been able to bring to market a saw using his technology that isn't 2 to 3 times the cost of similar saws on the market.

Simply put the saw would probably cost $400 or more. I don't know this man's employers cash flow but it is conceivable that being forced to pay this much for a saw would preclude the employer from ever hiring the man that got hurt. Nobody thinks about that.

Also what nobody thinks about is how many workers Ryobi will be forced to layoff because their once under $200 saw is now over $400 and nobody is buying them. How many thousands of dollars will be lost there. Who feeds the kids of these laidoff workers? The bottom feeding lawyers don't care.

How about the small business that now can't get workers comp for a price they can afford to pay because everyone saw this big pay out and potential for more bottom feeding lawyers to make money, so he has to go out of business. Who feeds the kids of the workers he laid off?

All action have reactions and reactions often aren't considered by jurys, judges or bottom feeding lawyers.